Reviews

The Oscar and film awards season has been a fun one this year, featuring one of the most intense Best Actor races of all time, but the sad thing is how many movies have disappointed. "Interstellar" was one huge supposed Oscar player that fell out of the race once people saw it, and the word right now is that Angelina Jolie's "Unbroken" won't be as big a player anymore. However, since about July there have been two movies that have stayed in the race, and at the front of the pack. The first being "Boyhood," a great contender for winning the Best Picture award, and the second is "Birdman." So when I entered the theater I was praying this movie would be all it was cracked up to be. Let's just say it didn't disappoint.

Michael Keaton - an actor who used to be well known for playing the superhero Batman, but has since fallen out of the spotlight- stars in this movie about a man named Riggan Thompson - an actor who used to be well known for playing the superhero Birdman, but has since fallen out of the spotlight. See the similarity? In this film, Riggan Thompson is coming up on the opening night of his Broadway play which he has written, directed, and starred in as an attempt to reclaim some of his fame. As the play, and his life, begin to fall apart days before the premiere, Riggan begins to learn the difference between who he was, who he is now, and who he decides he's going to be.

Though there is a strong sense of irony in having Michael Keaton play a washed up actor in this film, his performance makes you wonder why that irony was even possible in the first place. Keaton perfectly plays the comedy in his timing, the dramatic pressure in his actions, and the sad truths his character faces in his eyes. Keaton is thick in the pack of Best Actor contenders for the Oscars which is exactly where he belongs. Edward Norton leads the supporting cast of this film giving a performance that proves his incredible acting ability and makes us sad he turned down playing the Incredible Hulk in "Marvel's Avengers." Emma Stone, who typically sticks to sarcastic comedy roles, finds new ground here that we didn't even see in her dramatic breakout "The Help." Though I love Emma Stone, I've always been skeptical of her dramatic ability, but here I was surprised in the best way possible. Zach Galifianakis and Naomi Watts also head up the incredible balance of comedy and drama that was featured in this movie.

In this world, there are two types of art.

Let's say you walk into an art museum and see a Picasso. The colors are vibrant, the geometry is fascinating, and the techniques are entirely unique. People gather around this painting with you to marvel at the decisions this visionary artist made and the perfection created on the canvas. You tell yourself you're happy you got to see such a famed and outstanding piece of art, then you leave the building and hop in your car to go home. As you're driving home you flip on the radio to keep yourself from falling asleep. A song you've never heard before, but you really like, comes on and you start jamming all the way home. You get home and your friend is there. He asks you how your evening was, and you tell him all about the Picasso you got to see. Your friend is really interested so he hands you a pencil and a piece of paper and he tells you to sketch the Picasso for him. You look at him like he's silly, but he urges you, so you hesitantly pick up the pencil. That's when you realize that you can't remember exactly what it looked like, so you set the pencil down. Your friend then asks if you've heard any good music recently, so you tell him about the one you heard in the car. He asks you to hum it. Piece of cake.

"Birdman" is a great film. The actors are outstanding, the score made up of solo percussion is a genius idea, and the technique to make the film appear as a single take is not only successful but adds to the film as a whole. However, when the credits of this movie finish and you hear the last drum beat, the movie and everything about it comes to a complete end. This movie was hilarious, dramatic, and practically perfect in every technical way. "Birdman," was a Picasso. This movie was absolutely outstanding, but the only thing I was able to take away from it was a couple funny lines.

"Birdman," like a Picasso, was a technical masterpiece and the combination of that and how well reviewed it was resulted in me liking this movie without even thinking about it. Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu made the choice to give "Birdman" an alternate title. That title is: "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance." I think that fits perfectly.

I give "Birdman" an 8.5/10.

Whenever I watch movies on my own time, I typically like to pick ones that will help me prepare for the next film I will be seeing in theaters and reviewing for this column. Before "Fury" I watched some war movies, before "Lucy" I watched some action flicks, etc. I suppose I forgot to keep that in mind this week considering the three movies I watched most recently before "Big Hero 6" were "The Conjuring," "Interstellar," and "The Godfather: Part 1." So when an animated walking/talking inflatable white robot walked onto the screen, it was certainly a breath of fresh air.

"Big Hero 6" is advertised as and makes up the perfect movie to take your kids to this season. Focusing on an intelligent, inventive, 14-year-old prodigy name Hiro, "Big Hero 6" is a wonderful example of how heroes can come from anyone and anywhere. After losing a very close friend in an accident, Hiro and his newfound companion and best friend Baymax, a gentle healthcare robot who looks like what inflatable sofas are supposed to be, go on a search to try to figure out exactly what happened. By circumstance, they end up in the lair of an evil mastermind and, with the help of some friends, do their best to foil his evil plan while learning the importance of friendship along the way.

Young actor Ryan Potter provides the voice of Hiro, the hero of the story. His work was fine, nothing noticeable to criticize or give extra praise to, which is fitting with a lead character. The real credit for impressive voice work goes to Scott Adsit and his hilarious portrayal of the huggable robot Baymax. Even through an auto-tune-like filter, Adsit was able to give character lovable life. Many extra hilarious moments were given to us through Adsit's work, along with the very comical physical actions that were given to this talking balloon. T. J. Miller was another highlight of the film, as he was allowed to let loose with his character. Over the top at times, but overall very funny. James Cromwell, Jamie Chung, Damon Wayans Jr., Genesis Rodriguez, Maya Rudolph, Alan Tudyk, and Daniel Henney also lent their voices to the life of this film.

Between the two directors and three screenplay writers of this film, there are loved Disney credits such as "Monsters Inc." and "Monsters University," "Tarzan", "Cars," "Meet the Robinsons," "The Emperor's New Groove," and "Mulan," along with others. An excellent team was put together to make this film, and with a storyline and character ideas like these, it would have been a surprise if this film had not turned out well. What I didn't expect though, was that it would turn out this well. The story was excellent, the messages were brief but good, the characters were hilarious, a level of emotion was achieved, and the score was fun, exciting, and different. Everything about this film made for an excellent ride, perfect for kids, and a top choice for parents forced to see a "kid's movie."

There were certain moments and ideas that I wished had been embellished even more. One of my favorite parts of the film was the invention of San Fransokyo: an ingenious crossover between interesting Japanese culture and standard, relatable American culture. The idea for this semi-fictional city was perfect, though I felt like they almost went halfway with it. It appeared as though the final creation of it wasn't a clever combination of the cultures, but rather that they took American culture and made only major things like names and structures Japanese. This is no way reflected on the final result of the film, but it is an area I would have enjoyed a little more thought.

Directors Don Hall and Chris Williams did a particularly excellent job of making this film unique. They were given a very stereotypical storyline and they created a world and characters that succeeded in standing apart. Along with having the classic superhero versus supervillain plot, "Big Hero 6" also features the current favorite 'unlikely friendship' story. Back in 2010, Dreamworks and Dean Deblois came out with "How to Train Your Dragon," my personal favorite animated film and the 'unlikely friendship' idea created and perfected in an animated film. Hiro and Baymax provided extreme similarities to Hiccup and Toothless from "Dragon," even to the point of having a relationship-bonding flight sequence. "Big Hero 6" could have very easily been called a copy of "How to Train Your Dragon" had it been done wrong. Thankfully, this film was executed very well, and we have a result that sets itself apart from the formula animated film that is made so often.

There were few flaws in this movie, other than that it was too short. When the credits began to roll, I would have been more than content to remain in my seat for another thirty minutes. A collective contribution of excellent animation, fun story, great score, and quality voice work. In the end though, the best part was the marshmallow. So as I walked out of the theater, I couldn't wait for the sequel.

I give "Big Hero 6" an 8.2/10

Halloween night and, after returning from a very unfrightening costume party dressed as an even less frightening Santa Claus, I decided I wanted to be scared. So I hopped on the internet and found the popular 2013 horror flick "The Conjuring." Two hours later the movie finished and I was well into November first, flinching at every little sound I heard, and trying to fall asleep as my feet tingled in fear of being pulled from my bed. For anyone who has seen "The Conjuring," you know the exact feeling. Now I'm not a particular fan of horror films, they are extremely overdone and rarely well, but this one got to me. From my limited experience, "The Conjuring" is certainly the best horror movie I've seen. Then they went and made a prequel.

"Annabelle" is the prequel to the ever so successful and ever so creepy "The Conjuring." The premise of "Annabelle" is that one shot in "The Conjuring" where the same Annabelle doll turns her head and you wet your pants. The plot, however, is found in an average everyday couple and their newborn child. As a gift to celebrate the new baby's birth, the husband (I'm saying husband and wife because as soon as the movie finished I forgot their names) surprises the wife with a doll. After a traumatic incident where the neighbors are murdered by members of a satanic cult and the husband and wife are attacked, one of the attackers commits suicide with the doll in her hands. Some evil spirit then enters the doll, and the average happy family soon begin to experience the horrors of a demonic presence.

The happy couple, Mia and John Gordon (I just looked up their names on IMDb,) were played by Annabelle Wallis and Ward Horton, respectively. I was not impressed by either performance, as they were both very single noted. Ward Horton in particular had zero depth to his character making him entirely forgettable at the times even when he was not on screen. In "The Conjuring," one of the strongest things about the film was the performances. Patrick Wilson was fairly dull as well, but Vera Farminga and Lili Taylor gave the film a depth that really brought it to another level. This was nowhere to be found in "Annabelle." Alfre Woodard provided some interesting development and did save a couple scenes, but she was simply not allowed enough screen time to have any sort of effect on the final result of the film.

John Leonetti took the director's chair for "Annabelle," after being the head cinematographer for James Wan during filming of "The Conjuring." This is not the first time Leonetti has directed a sequel or prequel to a film he was head of photography. There is one consistency throughout his work though: the originals were fairly well received but when Leonetti was placed as director, the sequels were widely disliked. This is Leonetti's third film to direct, the first two were "Mortal Combat: Annihilation" and "The Butterfly Effect 2." It is a wonder to me that the prequel to "The Conjuring" was placed in such unreliable hands. However, it was, and "Annabelle" was the result.

As the previews finished and "Annabelle" began, I adjusted in my seat, bracing myself to be scared. Leonetti used a clever tool in beginning this film by using the same shots that began "The Conjuring." Unfortunately, after using up all these shots and displaying the title with a climactic musical swell, it went black. I was sure something was about to jump out and scare me. Instead, I looked up and I was in church. And a nice church too; very well lit. Church finishes and after a very lovely conversation with some friends, our average couple returned to their suburban California home with palm trees in the yard and the sun shining as bright as ever. At this point I almost began to wonder if I had sat down in the wrong theater. This continued for the rest of the film. There were different scenes where circumstances would climax and it would be fairly frightening, but seconds later it was morning again and the birds were chirping.

The thing that made "The Conjuring" work so well was the constant feeling that something awry was about to happen. It was the polar opposite here, where I found myself feeling like I was watching a pleasant drama rather than a horror film. It could be that was Leonetti's intent, to make you feel comfortable before he scares you, but it simply didn't work. In the end, the only credit for scares that got me go to the film's musical composer Joseph Bishara. Save some weak dialogue and performances, "Annabelle" was a decent film overall. It just wasn't scary. So as I walked out of theater, the doll never bothered me anyway.

I give "Annabelle" a 5.0/10.

I am sixteen going on seventeen, about to begin my senior year of highschool, and about to begin my life. Just about every person, I've learned, has been in the exact same position I am in right now: faced with the decision of what to do with the rest of their life. So no, I'm not unique in my dilemma, I have ninety classmates in the exact same place I am, but I can surely tell you that it's as real as ever. So this week I am in New York City, taking a week long course at the New York Film Academy, hoping to learn something, have some fun, and most of all praying that I can answer some of these questions that loom over my head as I stand on the doorstep of life. I may return knowing what to do and who to be, I may not, but what I do know is that you're getting this instead of the review of "The Expendables 3" that you probably expected.

As I began the second half of my junior year of highschool I decided I needed to begin thinking about what to do once I graduate. I have five siblings who had finished highschool by that time and so I was able to take a look at what they'd done to try to get an idea. What I observed is that they all followed they're passions: what they loved and what came naturally. One loved books as a kid: she became an English teacher. One was good at art: he's studying to be a graphic designer. Another was fascinated by the human body: she's headed for Medical School. So what's my passion? Easy, I love movies. . . Okay, well where do I go with that?

About this time I stumbled upon Short Term 12. I hadn't heard that much about it, no one had. It was a little independent film that hadn't gotten much notice. It made big splashes at smaller awards shows and festivals, but otherwise it was completely unknown. But somehow it found its way onto my television and what I found when it finished was that I had just had a ninety minute emotional ride. I laughed more than I expected, I cried more than I care to confess, and I loved these fictional people more than I thought was even possible.

Short Term 12 is a story about a twenty-something young woman named Grace. Grace works at a place called Short Term 12: a home for young teenagers whose home and family lives have become unsuitable and detrimental places for them to live. As can be expected, these kids have rough lives. Many have tried to harm themselves, most fall into extreme stages of depression, and yet amidst this all of them have found a couple of people they can call a really good friend: Grace, Mason, Nate, and Jessica. Grace and her co-workers aren't social workers, they don't have a certificate and they haven't gone to school for this, they're just the person who's there for the kids when they need it.

I'm unable to describe with words the things that take place in the short ninety minutes that make up Short Term 12. The way director and writer Destin Daniel Cretton knows these kids and how they behave and react in such delicate situations makes the story so personal even when there is no other way for a person like me to relate to them. I never imagined a short children's story about an octopus could bring an ocean of tears to my eyes or that someone could find such personal value in something as simple as shaving your head. These kids have been forced to live awful lives, yet they still have those little things to give them hope. Even more amazing seen in the story is the character of Grace. Brie Larson's incredible mental performance is one that should be treasured forever, and one that makes you love the person that Grace is. Grace, along with Mason, Nate, and Jessica, is a good person doing an incredible thing. They're not going to be recognized for it, no one's going to give them a military medal or a sports trophy at the end of the movie, all they are going to have at the end of the day is the knowledge that they've done a great thing. And tomorrow morning, it's back to work. Every time I watch this movie I realize more and more how much good these people are doing. Sure they're fictional, sure they can put whatever they want onto a movie screen. But what makes this movie stand out from the rest is that it's real. Grace and Mason are so real. And it makes me jealous because they are such, in the most simplistic way, good people. I still don't know what I want to do as a career, but I do know what I want to do with my life. I want to be a good person. I give Short Term 12 a 9.6/10.

About a week ago, I hate when this happens, but I had a strange urge to watch a war movie. So I hopped on the internet and tried to find what I could watch for free. "Apocalypse Now" was the only critically acclaimed one I could find, so I decided to spend my evening with Martin Sheen. When it finished, I felt awful. I felt like I was a terrible person, which is what Coppola was going for, but it wasn't exactly what I had planned to conclude my otherwise delightful day. In a way, "Fury" was the same type of war movie. It wasn't trying to tell a great story or show you good and heroic people, it was detailing the horrors and atrocities that make human war.

"Fury" is a film about World War II that shows us a new take on the terrible fighting that went on: the life of the men inside the tanks. Following a young man named Norman who is forced to become a member of the already close crew that makes Fury after one of the members is killed, we see this side through the slowly adapting virgin eyes of war. There are some awful things that happen, and through Norman's eyes, we witness them firsthand.

Brad Pitt is the big name advertised in this film, making up one of five primary characters in the film. His performance was one of my favorites, with just the right voice, look, and demeanor to play the role he intended. Logan Lerman played our eyes in the movie, doing a fine job of giving enough character while still making himself relatable to all viewers. Michael Pena and John Bernthal also played crew members of the destructive tank Fury, each taking on roles of the two different soldier stereotypes. Shia LaBeouf, an actor who I don't particularly have much favor for, got into this role like I've never seen him do. His commitment to the part really showed, giving us by far the deepest character in the movie, which is impressive considering he had little script to back him up.

David Ayer directs this film, and it was clear he had a set idea in mind. Taking a script he also penned with a very intriguing story, Ayer had just a couple things he needed to put together in order to complete his idea. Some of these he did something about, others he didn't bother. To begin with, the screenplay lacked depth in characters and their development. Our essential lead, played by Logan Lerman, had the typical and almost clichéd development as the boy who learns to be a man, but otherwise the characters were given at the start of the film and stayed constant throughout the entire movie. This is a movie with essentially just five characters, so development is very necessary to elicit enough intrigue, however with this movie it wasn't there.

Second, Ayer had to find the right tech guys to make this movie happen. The visual effects artists did a fine job in this film, though at times they, along with Ayer, made some interesting decisions. There were times where the animations would appear entirely realistic, but had almost cartoonish underlying suggestions. It worked, but it was hard to not notice. Ayer really hit the nail on the head though when he got to work with his sound guys. In any war movie, the sound is essential to bring it to life, and here the work was done with perfection. If any other sound mixers win at the Academy Awards this year, I will be very surprised. Finally, and this is the case with any movie, but Ayer had to take his screenplay and make it cool. This is a war movie about fighting tanks, the biggest, baddest, and most impressive part of early twentieth century war: we need to see come cool action scenes with awesome fight choreography. Here, Ayer delivered with flying colors. There's one scene in particular in "Fury" where it's a full-on open field fight between one tank and four others. This has to be one of the most gripping war film scenes I've ever seen. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time, and was not disappointed by the climatic conclusion. In the end, I enjoyed this movie very much. It was loaded with clichés, the character development was seriously lacking, and it was kind of long, but I was thoroughly entertained. In the likeness of "Apocalypse Now," "Fury" was incredibly violent with gruesome depictions, which is exactly what was intended, but can be disturbing and repellant to some viewers. The people I saw this movie with did not like it, mostly because of these reasons, but I was honestly surprised by its quality. So as I walked out of the theater, I was wanting to wash my hands and see it again. I give "Fury" an 8.2/10

So far this year, I've seen "Guardians of the Galaxy," I've seen "22 Jump Street," "Let's Be Cops," "Tammy," heck I've even seen "Transformers: Age of Extinction" and I have "Dumb and Dumber To" later this year. Even so, I can undoubtedly say that "The Best of Me" is the funniest movie of 2014. Too bad it isn't a comedy.

"The Best of Me" is the latest hot wind coming from romance author Nicholas Sparks. Sparks, and the movie based on his book, revolutionized the romance genre with the Chick-Flick classic "The Notebook." The only problem was that after the success of "The Notebook," they have since tried to revolutionize over and over and over. This is the seventh attempt at a revolution. The storyline, or rather the excuse for makeout scenes, for this movie is found in Dawson: a very attractive and buff man who, after a traumatic accident, learns the man who raised him has passed away. He returns to his hometown to take care of legal matters, and while he's there he reconnects with his beautiful high school sweetheart, Amanda, who is now married. Through a series of flashbacks we learn of their passionate, ignorance-fueled love they had while they were teenagers and exactly how much of that love has remained.

Luke Bracy and Liana Liberato played the younger, and conveniently more attractive versions of Dawson and Amanda. I almost felt bad for them as they are clearly trying to jumpstart their professional acting careers, and this movie was an unfortunate step in the wrong direction. Their older versions, however were played by professional actors James Marsden and Michelle Monaghan who have already achieved that fame coveted by those young actors. Whenever these movies come out with celebrity actors starring, I always get confused because, at least from the limited people I know, these movies are always laughable and taints our opinions of those actors. It hardly matters how good a job they do, the fact that they were in a Nicholas Sparks movie just somehow destroys all talent.

The director, Michael Hoffman, is a man with many great romance film credits to his name: "A Midsummer Night's Dream," "One Fine Day," and "The Last Station," among others. I have a feeling that from now on he will be putting those films on his resume and not this one. Now, it can be a good thing for a movie to have clichés, they are clichés for a reason because they work. But at some point, as a director, you have to realize when it's just too much. Within the first minute of this movie's start we have a circling, wide-angle, helicopter shot of an oil rig at sunset with seagulls calling in the back. Within five minutes of the movie's start we have a man looking to the stars to connect with his long lost love who is conveniently looking to the stars at the exact same time. And within ten minutes of the movie's start we have a dirty man in a very tight tank-top running through fire to save someone after a dramatic explosion. This continued through the entire movie as a boy ran away from home in the rain, the first kiss coming after the boy hands the girl a rose, and an out-of-the-blue salute to a retired military man (my personal favorite part of the film.) Like I said, clichés can work, but at some point enough is enough.

I'm not a particular fan of romance films and like to jokingly ridicule them to those who do by pointing out the stupid parts. The defense I always receive when I do usually goes: "Okay, but the story is so good! They're good people in real love!" I may receive that response for this one too, but in this case that defense is entirely false. This is a movie about two people who fall in love during high school. For a reason I won't spoil, they disconnect before college and later reconnect in their forties and passionately make love. By the time they've met up again, he's still a single man. She, however, has been married to a different man for eighteen years and has a son about to finish high school. In a nutshell, this movie is about an affair. I don't care how much love there was between them, she made a vow to her husband and eighteen years later she cut it off and the only reason we have to be on her side is that the man she married drinks alcohol. And all this leaving her son whose life will now be permanently ruined because his mother was selfish.

I laughed really hard when I watched this movie because there were so many stupid parts I could laugh at, but then the question occurred to me: what kind of story was Sparks trying to tell? So as I walked out of the theater, I couldn't believe what I'd just seen. I give "The Best of Me" a 3.6/10

Whenever I write these reviews on a movie I've just seen, I always get myself in the mood again by listening to the film's soundtrack as I write. As I sit here right now and the eerie sound of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross's score envelops me, I feel unlike myself. I feel not like a person I know. Not like a person at all. It's an unspeakable feeling, one that can only be put into words poorly as I have done. This sensation (which it is a sensation) is just a taste of what this entire movie does to you. Because this isn't a movie that you go and watch, this is a movie where you sit down and become Play-Dough in the hands of the filmmakers. And what they mold you into in the end - well, it's beyond description.

"Gone Girl" is about a wealthy middle-aged man named Nick Dunne, and his wife Amy. Nick returns home from visiting his sister Margo one day to find Amy missing, with signs of a struggle in the living room. Nick, along with Amy's incredibly wealthy parents, begin a search to find where she has disappeared to, as we slowly discover who is responsible for what has happened to Amy Dunne.

"Gone Girl" stars Ben Affleck as Nick and Rosamund Pike as Amy. I have never been fond of Affleck's acting ability and was no more impressed here. Affleck is a good filmmaker, his movies typically turn out well, but I always come away feeling he was the weak point, whether his role was behind or in front of the camera. Rosamund Pike on the other hand was outstanding in this film. Pike has had a bit of an interesting Hollywood story. It has always seemed she was one step away from stardom, but never quite in the spotlight. In my opinion, that is the perfect position for an actor to be in. She has the name to get those larger roles, but the unfamiliarity to get into those parts and make them significantly more believable. That scenario worked perfectly here, and the role of Amy is one of the best female performances I've seen all year. Making up the unlikely supporting cast are Neil Patrick Harris, Carri Coon, Missi Pyle, Kim Dickens, Emily Ratajkowski, and Tyler Perry.

David Fincher is the main man responsible for this film, a director with quite a rap sheet. With credits like "The Social Network," "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo," "Fight Club," and "Se7en," it is easy to fathom that this is a film that messes with your mind. I have always had a little personal hate for movies of that kind, not because I think it somehow makes a bad movie, but just because I'm too proud to admit that I was so manipulated. And boy did that happen here. In this two and a half hour movie, I had my beliefs about these characters and the story and I could give concrete defenses for them. Fast forward ten minutes and I have completely flipped sides. After watching this movie, I am confident I would make a lousy politician.

I still don't know how much I like this movie. I've always felt the best films are the ones that create strong characters who by the end of the two hours you know like your best friend. That didn't happen with this movie. The reason it didn't happen is because you were constantly being tricked into believing different things. I didn't like that, but it is undeniable that I completely fell for it. These filmmakers didn't make me believe what I wanted to believe, but they made me believe something. And then they took that, made me doubt it, and then made me believe something else. This film didn't fit the main quota that I'll give for a "good movie," but that wasn't what they were trying to do. They were aiming for something completely different, and they succeeded perfectly.

I always try to keep an open mind with movies, but I often fail. I am positive that there are a lot of people out there, and can even think of a few, who would love this movie. I didn't like the movie, but I loved that these filmmakers are so good at what they do. So as I walked out of the theater, I was wondering if the female worker who handed me my ticket was indeed female, or if David Fincher had tricked me into believing that too.

I give "Gone Girl" an 8.0/10.

There is a brief moment following the credits at the end of "The Boxtrolls" that shows a couple characters in action, while also showing those characters being created by the incredibly talented clay artists. This is a movie made using stop motion technology: a technique that takes hundreds of thousands of modeled photographs and runs them together to create the visualization of movement. Each photograph has to be delicately set up by human hands, and for this specific film, it is done with handmade clay figures. The precision and attention to detail that goes into making these films is of itself incredible, and I loved that after credits sequence where we were allowed to see that in action.

"The Boxtrolls" is a story is about a bunch of fantastical creatures wearing cardboard boxes who live under the streets of a fictional British city during the Steam Punk era. Every night, they come out of the sewers and scavenge the streets for objects, trinkets, machinery, and anything that sparks their curiosity. This specific story is about a human boy, named Eggs, who has been raised by the Boxtrolls. A fat and gangly villain is trying his best to eliminate every last Boxtroll from the city, and through the Boxtrolls' attempt to survive, Eggs begins to discover who he really is.

Isaac Hempstead Wright voices the lead role of Eggs, along with Elle Fanning in the second lead of Winnie. The main Boxtrolls were voiced by Dee Bradley Baker and Steve Blum, who did an entertaining job with their grunts and growls, though it was very difficult to not compare the Boxtroll characters to that of the ever so popular Minions from the two "Despicable Me" films. Ben Kingsley took on the role of Snatcher, the evil villain. Kingsley's work here was honestly my favorite part of the film. He found the character he wanted to play, however exaggerated, and he played it with commitment. It wasn't until the credits rolled that I finally realized what part he had played. In my opinion, when an actor has done their best job is when the viewer is completely unaware what role they were in. This is especially outstanding when that actor has become a celebrity, which unfortunately happens quite often in the film industry. Kingsley disguised himself in that way here, which added a much needed depth to the film.

As outstanding as the precision and attention to detail is when working with "clay-mation," some part of it has just always put me off. There is clearly an audience for it, but I know that I'm not a member. I find that it's extremely difficult to prevent stop- motion filmmaking from looking just plain gross. Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is one of my absolute favorite films and it uses this style of animation. However, when I watch that movie I find myself loving the story and the surprising depth of the characters and forgetting about what they look on the outside. I have yet to see a clay-mation film that does the same for me, because this one certainly did not.

Graham Annable and Anthony Stacchi headed up the storytelling, visualization, and overall mood of the film as the directors. I remember reading part of an interview with those two about making this film and in it they went on and on about how difficult it was for them to get everything to click in the right place, and how great it was once they finally achieved that. After watching the film, I don't understand how they found the latter part to be true. Practically every moment of this film was entirely unpleasant for me – to look at, to listen to, and to overall just be thrown into that world. Had some serious depth and reason to love the characters been introduced, the movie could have been something to get into. It would have been easy, they were working with tiny creatures that wear cardboard boxes like turtle shells, but in the end they just left them empty.

It wouldn't surprise me if I went out on the street and found someone who said that "The Boxtrolls" was one of their favorite movies. It had parts that could have been funny or clever – I did particularly enjoy the whole dilemma of "who's the good guy?" the main villain's henchmen faced during the movie – but because of the way things looked and felt, I just had a hard time enjoying myself while I watched it. So as I walked out of the theater, I was hoping my headache would go away before I sat down to write this review. I give "The Boxtrolls" a 6.6/10.

As I write these reviews each week I begin by opening the Microsoft Word app on my computer. I create a new document and select the font and size I prefer. Before I start writing I unnecessarily hit bold and type out my name, the film I'm reviewing, and the title of this column: "Boy Meets Film." When I came to this ritualistic point of my weekly writing, I stopped. I don't know why I chose the title I did for this column, I suppose I thought it was catchy. But right now, I see it as slightly providential.

This is not a typical film, everyone can agree to that fact. When someone is asked what this movie is about they will every time answer by telling how this film was made. In 2002, Richard Linklater had an idea. His idea was to take the same couple actors, same crew, and same vision and over the next twelve years film in real time the childhood and young adult years of a boy named Mason. When the movie begins Mason is six and staring at the clouds thinking about whatever it is six-year-olds think about. When the movie ends Mason has just begun his first day of college. He's lived through his learning years with all the crazy ups, downs, insides, and outs that all of us have had the privilege and burden to bear. And thanks to Richard Linklater's insane idea, we get to live through them again.

I could talk all day about how great an idea this is and what commitment it must have taken from everyone involved, because it really is outstanding. But we all realize that, so I won't linger too long. The actors performances, save for Patricia Arquette's (Mason's Mom) incredible breakthrough, were good, but mostly because they could just be themselves. I don't know if Ellar Coltrane (Mason) or Lorelai Linklater (Mason's sister Samantha) have any special acting talent, all they had to do was see themselves in that situation and respond as they would. What was amazing about what they did here didn't come from their acting, it came from their vulnerability. I feel like I know exactly who Ellar Coltrane is as a person because he nakedly put himself in front of the world free to be judged. I don't know if he has an acting career to follow, but he did let me know exactly what kind of person he is and has become.

That's the part of the movie that scared me. As I watched this film and as I watched Mason grow into the independent adult that he became, I got chills because I felt like I was watching myself. None of the physical circumstances related: Mason's parents are divorced from the start of the movie - my parents are running on thirty years, Mason got involved in teen drinking and partying – I don't think I even know what beer tastes like. But what I did find was that deep down inside Mason was a hard thinker; he thinks deeper than he needs to or even probably should. As a result, he had questions. I had to keep myself from screaming in the theater because I have found myself asking those same questions day upon day upon day. The ones that we can ask repeatedly, but will always remain unanswered. These questions about life. The same ones I whined about it my review last week. The way people work, the relationships we have with them, the wishy-washiness of life: all of these came echoing back to me as I watched Mason go through the part of life I am at right now.

I think what makes this film so good is that I'm not the only one that feels this way. I encourage everyone to look up Drew McWeeneys review of "Boyhood" on HitFix.com because after watching this movie because he along with hundreds of others, had the exact same relationship with the film as I did, though in the way that most relates to the kind of person he or she is. I think that's what Linklater achieved with the most profoundness in this film. He set out to portray life and he did. Yes it's a feat, but it has been done before. What he accomplished in the most remarkable way is that he portrayed everyone's life. We come away from this film with Mason as such a firm character in our minds, yet Linklater used the one fictional human being to create a universe full of lives that each and every one of us can relate to in our own very personal way.

I apologize for using this column as a personal journal these past two weeks, but these two films are ones that cause you to think about who you are and why you do what you do. That isn't for every movie, but when it does come along it is beautiful.

I give "Boyhood" a 9.0/10

As you walk in the theater to watch "Let's Be Cops" you have to have a little bit of understanding what movie you just paid to fill up 100 minutes of your life. This is a dumb movie made in a cheap way that is intended to be dumb and cheap. I went in to see this movie with those expectations and as a result I was fairly entertained for the time I was sitting in that seat. To begin with "Let's Be Cops" has an absurd premise: two loser guys dress up as police officers for a costume party, and because the earth is apparently populated with people who have elementary levels of intelligence, the citizens of Los Angeles believe that they are legitimate officers of the law. In the most ridiculous and illegal ways they decide to use this to have some fun, get some girls, and get away with whatever the heck they want. But since this is a motion picture, their partying does come to stab them in the back as they get involved with a mafia- style gang, which is where we get the meat of the story.

"New Girl" co-stars Jake Johnson and Damon Wayans Jr. reteam for this film as Ryan and Justin: two of the biggest losers ever put onto the big screen. Their performances were good, granted the fact that absurd comedy is perhaps the easiest to do well in a film. Johnson specifically took on the role of a loser very well leaving you with the amount of distaste for his character which was needed to tell the story. Wayans did an excellent job of grasping the ridiculousness of the film and putting it into his character at the correct times. Ryan and Justin were not nearly as funny as they could have been, but for the budget this film was given Johnson and Wayans did an excellent job of providing very funny performances that are very necessary for a film like this to work. Also among the cast were James D'Arcy as the stereotypical villain, Nina Dobrev as the stereotypical girlfriend, Keagan-Michael Key as an over the top gang member, Rob Riggle as the only person who gets anything done, and a surprising appearance from Andy Garcia as the stereotypical gang leader.

When it comes to making a comedy of this style there is a precise formula that is easy to follow, works very well, and as a result is done very often. Director and co-writer Luke Greenfield clearly decided early on to stick with this formula and it can be seen throughout the film: We start with two guys. Both are over the top, both are good-for-nothings, both are funny, but are ten times funnier when they are together. Enter a ridiculous plot which they innocently get mixed up in and is way out of their league, usually something that comes up a lot in other films and TV shows. Add a creepy villain here, a girlfriend for one of them there, and a scene where they drop the comedy and say something deep and profound. Finish it up with a moment of true courage, cut quickly to another stupid joke before the credits roll, and you're set! A guaranteed twenty-five million dollars on opening weekend.

I'm not saying I dislike the formula, it works. It's irritating, but it works. At least some credit is due for that. It does bother me, however, that the films that follow the formula are often extremely successful and well-known, when there are so many really good films that take huge risks and are only seen by a select number of people. On its own scale though, this movie was fairly delightful. A good percentage of the jokes were very funny, there were numerous cringe-worthy moments, but it worked because somehow a laugh will always win that battle. The film also featured an excellent climax which was funny and even slightly suspenseful.

If you do decide to go see this film, which I don't think I'd immediately recommend, go in as I did. Have zero expectations. In fact, have low expectations. You're not going to find a "Dumb and Dumber" or a "Bridesmaids" in this movie, but it isn't a terrible thing to waste an hour and forty minutes on if you go in with very low expectations. I enjoyed it for the brief bit of my life, but I do know that I don't ever want to see it again. So as I walked out of the theater, I was ready to move onto the next thing.

I give "Let's Be Cops" a 5.8/10.

Around 2008-2010 all the people my age, teens and young adults, started on a craze of reading similar dystopian novels and series. There were countless ones: "The Hunger Games", "Divergent", "The Giver", "Ender's Game", etc. After "The Hunger Games" paved the way with huge success, we are now in the middle of the phase where all those books are being made into movies. "The Maze Runner" is an addition to that phase. Based on the novel by James Dashner, "The Maze Runner" is a film about a young man who suddenly wakes up in a strange place with no feasible mode of escape and no memory of who he is and how he got there. He gradually discovers more and more of the suspicious place he is forced to live in and the people he is forced to live with, and what chance he has of escaping the Maze with his life.

Dylan O'Brien takes on the role of Thomas, our protagonist and a person who is about as average as you can get. O'Brien wasn't given much of a character to work with at the start, but he put little extra into this role which honestly made him rather boring to watch. Practically all the other characters in this film played the same way. Will Poulter's performance is by far the most noteworthy and Blake Cooper's character of Chuck was the most interesting character in the screenplay, but every character was hard to get attached to. That may be mostly on the screenwriters, but when it comes to personality a lot of weight is put on the shoulders of the actors. And here, they just didn't deliver.

Ultimately, I think character development could have been the best choice to make this movie stand out. The story is set up where a large number of young men are thrown together, forced to live in an enclosed area. Freedom is not initially an option, so they have to learn to create a society and work together to survive. What I loved about this story is that this happened; they did work together and had peace before they tried to have freedom. This is an incredibly unique choice, so I wish it had been a major focus of the story. In order for that many young, hormone raging, teenage men to create such a society, many mature decisions had to be made by these characters, and we never got to see that happen. The Maze is cool, the action and killing giant robotic spiders was cool, but the coolest thing was these strong characters that were hidden behind the curtain for the whole movie.

Clearly, a choice by director Wes Ball was made about what his focus would be. After he decided to make the recipe young adult action flick instead of this "Lord of the Flies" type story, he needed to make some changes from the story in the book. A book can succeed in having two such different types of stories survive, but a movie is sadly not capable of such a feat. His changes needed to be on what he wanted to do with his characters, specifically Will Poulter's Gally and Kaya Scoledario's Teresa. Teresa's purpose in the film was entirely unclear to me, and whether or not Gally was going to be a villain or the unlikely hero was a mystery to me until the final five minutes of the movie. Poulter really gave a good performance in this film, and Ball's poor character choices made that completely irrelevant. Had some decisions been made about what to do with the people on screen, the movie could have been much, much better.

Perhaps the most impressive work done in this film was by Artistic Director Douglas Cumming. His visualization of the Maze and especially the Glade were superb and made the film both beautiful and mesmerizing. An intense score provided by John Paesano accompanied the film, which added to the awesomeness of the film's appearance. Some may suggest that Cumming's work was unoriginal, with many scenes appearing like other films. The film's main villains, robotic spiderlike creatures called Grievers, had an uncanny resemblance to the spider Shelob in "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." However, with similarly choreographed chase scenes and shots identical to "The Return of the King," I think the responsibility falls more again on director Wes Ball. The end of the film also provides us with an escape almost identical to 2005's "The Island," along with other unoriginal frames.

Overall, "The Maze Runner" was enjoyable. It had cool action scenes and was a really good idea for a story. As a young adult action flick, it meets the quota. It definitely doesn't go anywhere past that though. I just had a hard time getting into it because I didn't have reason to care about any of the characters. So as I walked out of the theater, I was ready for bed.

I give "The Maze Runner" a 7.5/10.

"The Maze Runner" is now showing at the Vermillion Coyote Twin.

I was born in 1997. Ninja Turtles was a little bit before my time, so going into this movie I didn't exactly have the nostalgia to sit me down all the way. I never really watched the old television cartoons or got excited about the feature films that came out in the early 90s; to be perfectly honest going in I didn't know very much at all about the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" except their name. In the end though, that's all you need to know. They're Teenagers, they're Mutants, they're Ninja's, and they're six-foot Turtles. That's enough of a plot basis right there to support three television shows and five full length films, including this one.

Megan Fox plays April O'Neal in this version of TMNT, taking the part of the essential lead for this film. Giving her as much credit as possible, receiving a role like this does come with some serious constraints. We've all seen the aspiring news reporter waiting to catch her first big story a million times, so nothing new was expected from Fox as she took the part. Which is a good thing, because nothing more was delivered. I was hoping for a little something more, especially considering that Fox said this was her dream role, but I wasn't given anything more than what we always get. Fox did what she should and didn't venture any further than that.

The Ninja Turtles were voiced by Alan Ritchson, Noel Fisher, Pete Ploszek, and Johnny Knoxville in their respective roles. Each were delightful in their place, however Knoxville's vocal work as Leonardo did tend to bother me at times as he didn't seem to fit in quite as well with the rest of the gang. This is could root from the fact that he was only Ninja Turtle to not perform the character's Motion Capture work as well as voice the role. Co-starring in the film were Will Arnett, William Fichtner, and Whoopi Goldberg, along with Tohoru Masamune as Shredder and Tony Shalhoub voicing Splinter.

As you walk into the theater to watch this film you have to take a moment to realize that you are sitting down to watch a movie where the main characters are giant karate fighting turtles. This isn't a movie made to portray things realistically, this is a movie made to be a movie. A time when you can let your imagination run wild and see and experience things that real life is never going to give you. Yes this movie is laughable at times because of how ridiculous it is, yet it's cheesy beyond belief (five layers of cheese with a stuffed crust! Cowabunga!), but it's meant to be. Seeing this movie is a time when you go to the theater to forget about work tomorrow or the math test you have on Monday and just have fun.

If only director Jonathan Liebesman and the various character designers had realized that. There was only one thing that seriously turned me away from this movie once I came to that initial realization. The way things looked. I understand this is the first live-action version of the Ninja Turtles and that they wanted to take advantage of the incredible Motion Capture technology that there is today, but the characters honestly just looked pretty nasty. The turtles were easily lost in their surroundings, save the fact they are green, and I initially thought Splinter was a villain from his appearance. Typically if you see a slimy nosed rat with black eyes and stringy whiskers it's safe to assume it will turn out to be a bad guy. What I suspect is that the designers were intending to take our modern technology to make them look as realistic as possible. This would work if the rest of the film was made the same way, but this film was not made to be realistic; it was made to be fun. If the story and the characters had been consistently fun or consistently realistic we would have ended up with a good film, but since they were conflicting we got an overall unpleasant experience.

It seems like such a tiny and amateur detail, but in the end it made a complete difference for me. There were wonderful parts to this film: the snowy mountain slope chase was excellently choreographed and the brief elevator interlude brought me to tears with laughter, but overall it was like watching two conflicting ideas battle it out on screen. So as I walked out of the theater it wasn't too much of a hike.

I give "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" a 6.9/10.

In perhaps Marvel's riskiest move, 'Guardians of the Galaxy' was released this past weekend and found traction that few expected. Grossing in the 92-million dollar area over its first weekend, 'Guardians,' and the particularly talented marketers of the film, drew in many viewers and sent away many fans. This one included. 'Guardians of the Galaxy' is an extremely fun film about a band of five misfits who come together through necessary circumstances to save the universe. With a little bit of a bumpy road along the way, we are allowed to enjoy, laugh at, and surprisingly care for these characters over the course of a fast-paced two hours.

Chris Pratt, an actor well known for his comedic roles, headlines the cast of characters in this film, and does an excellent job of not being left behind in the story and by other, more interesting, characters. Pratt is able to hold his own in the film, and may walk away as many people's favorite character, which is a feat when he's standing alongside a sassy raccoon and a gentle, talking tree. Zoe Saldana played the apparently green-skinned Gamora, who's fairly realistic acting was an unfortunate misplace in this film. I'd personally like to see a standalone film for Gamora to see what it was Saldana was intending to do with her character, because in this film the director, or at least the producers, did not allow her to follow through. Sadly, because of this many people are going to walk away with dislike of her part in the movie.

Also making up the five Guardians are WWE fighter Dave Bautista as the not-so-destructive Drax the Destroyer, and Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel lending their voices to the film's favorites Rocket Raccoon and Groot, respectively. I particularly liked what Cooper did, actually lending some effort to voicing the raccoon, and Vin Diesel's performance was extremely subtle and small, but excellent nonetheless. Lee Pace, Benicio Del Toro, Djimon Hounsou, Glenn Close, John C. Reilly, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, and a brief hint of Josh Brolin make up the impressive supporting cast in their various and hilarious roles.

This movie was, in a whole, absolutely hysterical. This isn't the first time a Marvel movie has been that way (cue unpleasant flashback to 2011's Thor), thankfully this time around it was completely intentional. After getting through a very rough first ten minutes, I was laughing out loud until the very end. Director James Gunn took every opportunity he had to change any sort of suspense or drama that might sneak its way into our head into a moment of uncontrollable laughter. And it worked. That's the best thing, it absolutely worked. Here and there you'd run into a moment where you were ready to get on with the story, but in the end that didn't matter. This isn't a movie where afterwards you go and tell everyone about all the cool things the heroes did and how intricate the plot was, and it's not meant to be. This movie is meant to make you laugh, and it does.

'Guardians of the Galaxy' had many imperfections. The visuals were amateurish for a film with such a large budget, the necessary storytelling dialogue was forced and predictable, and the fight cinematography left you dizzy with a bad feeling in your stomach. In the end though, it didn't make a difference. What director James Gunn and his co-writer Nicole Perlman decided to do from the start was allow just enough plot and action to make it a "superhero movie" with the final intention of making a laugh-out-loud comedy. They did, it was, and I laughed for two hours.

But for just those two hours. I look back at the film now and realize that it left me with nothing. I laughed hysterically while I was watching it, but now all I have left to take with me from the movie is a couple funny lines to quote. For a movie to take the leap from good to great is that wish to watch it again because it found a good place in your heart. "Guardians of the Galaxy" wasn't able to do that for me. I can't say I disliked this movie, because I didn't: I was laughing harder than I have for a while, it just couldn't go that extra mile, and I don't think that in a couple years anybody will be remembering this film with any special fondness. So as I left the theater I was loving this movie; unfortunately, it stopped there.

I give "Guardians of the Galaxy" a 7.9/10.

It's hard to find an original idea in a movie these days. Sometimes it seems like every major blockbuster released is either a sequel, a comic- book adaptation, or some sort of remake. "Hercules" is no different. Adapted from the graphic novel titled "Hercules: The Thracian Wars" which was of course adapted from the ancient Greek legend, this film had few original ideas. At the start Hercules, the supposed demi-god, and his band of warriors are traveling the Grecian world, killing people as they are paid to do so. We soon find that Hercules is not actually a demi-god, but rather a very large man whom he and his companions have fooled the Grecian world into believing he is the son of Zeus. The story develops as a very attractive woman comes begging for Hercules to come save her people. Hercules agrees, once a fitting price is decided upon, and what results is Hercules finding both his biggest challenge yet and his heart.

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson stars in this film as Hercules. Perhaps being the thickest, brawniest, and largest professional actor working today, he fit the part very well. Visually, that is. The acting left a little bit to be desired. Never uttering a single line that was not in the form of either a mumble or a full out scream, it was extremely difficult to find any sort of personality in Hercules aside from the fact that he was played by "The Rock." Rebecca Ferguson takes the largest supporting role in this film, playing the damsel in distress. Her performance was just as empty as Johnson's, which honestly was the case with the entire cast. John Hurt plays the part of the wimpy king who's in need of more leadership than his kingdom, Tobias Santelmann sits in the role of the initial villain, Rufus Sewell, Ian McShane, and Ingrid Berdal play members of Hercules' heroic gang along with Aksel Hennie playing the silent Tydeus, who's supposed to be your favorite character.

As the film began I actually became excited. The way screenwriters Ryan Condal and Evan Spiliotopoulos decided to leave fantasy or magic out of the story, and have the characters play upon that fact, really sparked my interest. However, they were inconsistent with that. Not inconsistent by having supernaturals play a real part in the story, but inconsistent by the fact that this is what they were planning to do and didn't do it. I really wanted to see Hercules be a large baby who had to have his companions do everything for him, which is what the first few minutes of the film set me up to believe. Unfortunately this didn't happen, and as soon as this became evident I lost most of my interest in the film.

That's honestly where the entire fault of this movie came: From the first five minutes. And what happened there almost seemed intentional. For example, the first one or two scenes were overflowing with visual effects, and visual effects that were extremely poor. But just at the start, the rest of the film had good quality animation. I initially thought that this was just because the VFX artists had done a lousy job, but where the dialogue and story led in the next two scenes led me to believe the visuals were bad in order to mock the kind of movie they were making. However, as the story developed, I found that this was not their plan, and whether it was intentional or not, the visual effects used in the first few scenes actually were just bad. My biggest issue with this film is that I couldn't determine what director Brent Ratner wanted to do with this movie. What I got from advertising was that this was going to be a full out action/fantasy film. What I got from the first few scenes of the movie was that this was a movie mocking itself. What I got from the rest of the film was a bland mixture of the two. I didn't dislike this movie, but I had no reason to like it either. So as I left the theater I felt the exact same way I felt as I was walking in. And that should never be the case. I give "Hercules" a 6.5/10.

Melissa McCarthy has been making a pretty steady stream of films almost identical to this one, but where "Bridesmaids", "The Heat," and even "Identity Thief" succeeded, "Tammy" fell very short. "Tammy" is a movie about a middle-aged woman whose obnoxious personality has finally caught up to her. In the first five minutes of the film she has totaled her car, gotten fired from her job, and discovered her husband is having an affair. Her solution to this is to hit the road with her alcoholic grandmother and what follows is a cringe-worthy look at what happens when fictional crass and drunk people do whatever they want. A great idea right?

Wrong. I've always liked road-trip movies. I've always like road-trips. They bring out people's true characters, and what they're actually like when they've been alone in a car for a couple of hours. Yes, this can be pretty unpleasant when we're in the midst of it, but when we're allowed to sit back and watch, humanity becomes admirable when we can see what people are actually like with no boundaries, because the result is often good. If my opinion is asked for, that should be the goal of most films: to take a look at who we are.

So yes, I was looking forward to watching "Tammy" solely because of the fact that it's a road-trip movie. Unfortunately, this is not a road-trip movie. There are maybe three scenes in the entire film that take place in a car, and I'm pretty sure the only time we actually saw anyone driving on a highway was at the very start as Tammy was driving to work. It can be pretty hard to make a cross-country trip if you only drive through neighborhood streets, unless I'm reading the map upside- down.

"Tammy" had an outstanding cast, and it was largely wasted. Starring is of course Melissa McCarthy, playing the exact same character she always plays. That character has been very funny in the past, specifically large-screen debuting in "Bridesmaids", but here it just felt rehearsed. For what McCarthy called her passion project, I felt like she almost didn't even want to be there. Susan Sarandon co-stars as the grandmother, whose character must have been a grandmother at age thirty by the looks of it. In the outstanding (on paper) supporting cast we find Allison Janney, Kathy Bates, Sandra Oh, Mark Duplass, Nat Faxon, Sarah Baker, Toni Collette, and Dan Aykroyd. Bates and Baker specifically were very good, but were given way too little time on screen, and I was legitimately surprised Aykroyd and Colette even agreed to do this movie considering what they were given.

Director, supporting actor, co-writer, and husband to star Melissa McCarthy, Ben Falcone, attempted something different with his directorial debut, and that's where "Tammy" hurt more than anywhere else. What was advertised was an R-rated comedy, where you sit down to laugh at stupid people doing stupid things, and Falcone embraced that. Where he faulted was also trying to make this movie heartfelt with a good message behind it. What resulted was a 96 minute film where I didn't care for the characters or laugh a single time. I applaud Falcone for experimenting, but he should have realized that it didn't work and take advantage of the reshoot that they took to make some much needed changes.

I was very put off by "Tammy". I'm not a very big fan of the R- rated comedy genre in the first place, but I still laugh as the filmmakers blatantly attempt to elicit that reaction. Unfortunately, "Tammy" was not funny, and that can be a problem when that's the only reason somebody will go see this movie. So as I walked out of the theater I finally laughed as some bloopers began to play and my friend aptly stated: "Let's go. No need to watch the mistakes of the mistake."

I give "Tammy" a 5.2/10.

This is the fourth installment of the Transformers films, and let me assure you that it is just as loud as the previous three. In this episode we find a completely new set of characters, solely because the previous actors refused to return. The film begins with Texan inventor Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg) collecting thrown out metals and other garbage as he tries to create his million dollar idea in order to put his daughter through college. (Unfortunately his "million dollar idea" is a robot that will paint walls with a roller, so this is fairly unsuccessful. At least the robot had eyes!) The irrelevant storyline given to us this time around is a corrupt CIA official hunting down all the remaining autobots in order to obtain their parts to manufacture the ultimate weapon. Meanwhile Cade Yeager stumbles upon a truck which turns out to be Optimus Prime and we have our innocent human caught in the mix. But no one cares about the story anyway, we're just here to see the explosions.

As previously mentioned, Mark Wahlberg leads the cast of characters in this film. His performance was extremely dull and rehearsed, but his biceps were very large, and that's all that really mattered with this story. Nicola Peltz played the main female model -- excuse me, character, in this episode and let me just say that I never thought I'd be asking for Megan Fox to come back. Fox was hardly an actor in the first two films, but her character had at least some sort of personality to it. Peltz gave her role as Wahlberg's daughter zero character and it was honestly uncomfortable every time she appeared on screen.

The only actor who was able to find any sort of traction in this film was Stanley Tucci. Playing inventor/businessman Joshua Joyce, Tucci at some point realized there was no point in trying to give a quality performance in this film, so his solution to that was to go crazy. Doing entirely unreasonable actions and laughter and ad-libbing ridiculous lines throughout, Tucci provided me with many laughs. Also cast in the film were Kelsey Grammar as the corrupt CIA official, T.J. Miller as the irritating sidekick, Jack Reynor as the guy Nicola Peltz kisses at the end of the movie, and John Goodman, Ken Watanabe, Robert Foxworth, and Peter Cullen lending their voices to play the autobots.

Sadly, Michael Bay returned once again to direct Transformers 4, with Michael Kruger penning the script and the many visual effects artists making the movie. Bay did what he always does, providing just enough story so that he can fit in as many loud explosions and attractive women as he can. Sometimes I wonder if Bay cares at all about the final result of his films. In this specific film the story goes nowhere, the brief synopsis I provided is about as far as it reaches, and the continuity issues are countless. Had Bay or the editors paid attention to the order of things, Optimus Prime would have been dead five minutes into the movie.

And finally, this is something I usually try to avoid from bothering me, but this movie was much too long. It wasn't quite three hours, but with as little story as there was I was having to readjust in my seat more times than I can remember. About two hours in I remember watching one of the long drawn out battles and thinking that this was the climactic final battle. That's when I realized that I hadn't even seen one of the Dinosaur Transformers that they had boasted so much about in advertisement.

It's probably pretty clear that I didn't like this movie very much. With as many great films as I've seen already this summer, this was a huge disappointment. I've always slightly enjoyed watching the Transformers films for the sake of seeing the giant robots fighting each other and the fact that the visual effects creators are so good at making that, and I was looking forward to this as I entered the theater. However, this movie seriously turned me off, and as I left the theater I was glad to be doing so.

I give "Transformers: Age of Extinction" a 5.8/10.

22 Jump Street, a sequel to 2012's 21 Jump Street, which was a remake of the 1981 television drama 21 Jump Street, so it's safe to say that this idea has been around the track a few times. In this episode, we find Jenko and Schmidt immediately following where we left them in 2012, to recreate the exact same story we saw two years ago with minor details tweaked here and there. In a nutshell this movie is funny, it's a mockery, it's laughing at its own stupidity, and absolutely nothing more comes from it. Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill return to star as the leads. Both do an excellent job, as it is clear that they now know for sure what kind of movie they are making: a movie thriving off of stupidity, and they grasp that well. Hill has his classic awkward character he often plays that is thoroughly entertaining, feeding off of a script written to match this dork of a character. As good a job as Hill does, I was honestly entertained more by Tatum's performance. The more solemn character who says just the right thing at just the right, or wrong, time is always a delight, and Tatum executes this marvelously. The two leads were great and without their willingness to do whatever it was they did during filming, this movie could have easily been horrible. In the main supporting role we find Ice Cube, who frankly pained me every time I would see him appear on screen. His character was so incredibly forced, and whether or not this was intentional, it was surely not pleasurable. Also co-starring are Jillian Bell, who was very entertaining with the short on screen time she was given, Amber Stevens, Wyatt Russell, Peter Stormare, and briefly Nick Offerman, with that identical character seen in every film of his which never fails to spark some laughter. Returning to the director's chairs are Phillip Lord and Christopher Miller, directing a script penned by Michael Bacall, Oren Uziel, Rodney Rothman, and star Jonah Hill. I believe the charm of this movie was a result of the latter four's work. When sitting down to write the screenplay, it is clear that the writers were well aware of the fact that they were doing a sequel to a remake of a five season, 102 episode TV show. The best part is, they grasped that. As opposed to trying to escape the fast current of making a formula sequel, they chose to hop right in and race to the front, and then mock themselves for it. Directly throwing in lines such as "keep it like the first time" or "it worked the first time, so let's do the same thing" right into the dialogue of the film. That's what this movie is all about. Sure it has characters and a storyline, but more than anything the filmmakers are taking a look at the profession they work in and what has become the easy money in that field, and then ridiculing it. The funny thing is, in doing so, they made the easy money too. I didn't particularly like this movie; I felt it went on too long and there was zero closure at the end of the film, but that doesn't really matter. This is a movie made to be stupid, and it was, and I laughed. I give 22 Jump Street a 7.8/10.

The Fault in Our Stars is a story about young life, love, and living while you can. Based on the 2012 novel written by John Greene, this film tells the story of Hazel Grace and Gus, two teenagers living with different kinds of cancer. Hazel, the more pessimistic of the two, knows she has limited time left and chooses to let the clock tick without making something happen. The story begins with Hazel meeting the charismatic Gus at a stereotypical support group. Gus immediately chases after her affections and what follows is a beautiful story of what life is like for the not-so-typical American teenager falling into the arms of young love.

Leading this small but powerful cast is the phenomenal Shailene Woodley, in the role of Hazel Grace. Woodley practically carries the film on her shoulders being the entire focus of the film, and she does an incredible job of it. The emotional ups and downs her character endures over the course of the story were hard ones to keep up with, and hard ones for a 16 year-old boy to relate to, but I was immediately taken by the power of her character and the realities she faced, and the realities actress Shailene Woodley portrayed so well. In my opinion, Woodley's performance is by far the best seen in a 2014 film so far, and will be hard to top. Starring opposite Woodley is Ansel Elgort, playing the bold and practical Gus. Elgort's performance honestly put me off a bit. The character he developed was great, however it did not match the screenplay he was given beforehand, which made the character of Gus difficult to relate to. This was minor, however, and in no way took away from the whole of the film. Also starring are Laura Dern and Sam Tremmel doing an excellent job as Hazel's parents, Natt Wolf as Gus' best friend, who's purpose was honestly difficult to understand, and Willem Dafoe as Hazel's temporary idol Van Houten. Josh Boone took the director's chair for this picture, whose screenplay was provided from Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber adapting the novel of John Greene. Neustadter and Weber did an excellent job with their adaptation, keeping necessary story plots, eliminating portions that would fit well for a book but would struggle on the screen, while holding dearly on to the abstract and poetic words of author John Greene. Director John Boone's work was hardly noticeable in this film, which is always debatable whether or not that is a good quality. Here, I believe it was. What Boone did allowed the viewer to step into Hazel's small world. A small world filled with countless infinities. There were no extraordinary shots, camera angles, or certain scenes that left watchers breathless; instead, we were there with her. Sitting on her bed waiting for those special texts filled with so much more than a three word message, climbing stairs that felt like both an impossible mountain and the finish line of a marathon, and seeing everyone you care about so much love you more than you can imagine. The work done by these filmmakers did not take us anywhere special, but they allowed us to see life here on earth at its fullest: valuing the people you're with above anything else, whether it's in the form of romance or friendship and especially family at its very best. The Fault in Our Stars is not a movie about cancer. It is a movie about love in all of its truest forms. So as I sat in the theater watching the credits roll with other viewers walking past me wiping their eyes, I smiled. And that's exactly what a movie should do. I give The Fault in Our Stars an 8.6/10.

Maleficent, directed by Robert Strombeg, is a retelling of the well- known fairytale Sleeping Beauty. In this film, we take a look at this story from the perspective of the character typically portrayed as the villain. At the start, we meet Maleficent as a young fairy girl living in the magical wilderness, flying on her majestic wings, healing broken trees, and living life to the fullest with various fascinating mystical creatures. After falling in love with a young human boy, something which is forbidden, we flash forward to Maleficent as an adult. After she is betrayed by someone she cares for dearly, Maleficent transforms into the evil, vengeful witch known so well as the villain from the classic Disney fairytale, and rather abruptly I must add. The story unfolds as Stromberg and screenwriter Linda Woolverton both follow the old fairytale, while also taking many liberties along the way, as we watch Maleficent and Aurora learn about magic, life, and the real meaning of true love.

Angelina Jolie headlines this film playing the title role. Jolie does an excellent job with her portrayal, making references to the original animated character while also adding more consistent and modern themes to the part. I almost feel bad for Jolie, as she was sort of paddling upstream with this character. The way Stromberg decided to cut and play Jolie's acting sequences, while also letting the atrocious leather pants of costume designer Anna Sheppard find their way onto the screen, brought down the quality of this performance. Also starring is Elle Fanning in the role of Aurora. Fanning is a young actress with still plenty much to learn, so it is not surprising that few risks were taken on her part, as the character resulted rather blandly. Still, she played the part as she should, and we were left with Aurora as we have always known – unfortunately, this is completely unlike the rest of the film. Also starring are a miscast Sharlto Copley as Aurora's father, Sam Riley as a confusing Diaval, and Imelda Staunton, Leslie Manville, and Juno Temple, as the funny and very inconsistent pixies.

The sole fault of this film comes from director Robert Stromberg; unfortunately for a movie, that is the worst place to have your mistake be. Linda Woolverton gave him a screenplay that, sure it had its faults, but was overall a perfect script for this type of movie. It almost felt that Stromberg, a two-time Oscar winning Art Director, didn't know what to do half the time. The dialogue and essential storytelling were rushed, the only plot development coming from narration, while random flying scenes other beautiful sights were sustained. This can be good, just not in a movie containing a story so intricate cut down to under 100 minutes. As soon as I felt like I had gotten to know Jolie's Maleficent she had already overcome her difficulties and was beginning to receive closure, while the majority of the other characters were still meaningless to me as the credits rolled. I'm not simply saying that I wished for this film to have been longer, but that Stromberg had done more with these characters so that I could have loved them. It also seemed that Stromberg didn't know how he wanted his viewers to feel walking out of the theater. I was unable to tell if this movie was supposed to be dark and make me feel depressed or scared, or if it was intended to be a happy children's film that would make me laugh at the simplest thing. As a result of this confusion, I left the theater feeling neither way. Which, may just be the perfect example of an imperfect movie. Disney seems to be on a similar streak with a bunch of their ideas, and Maleficent is a combination of those. Grasping the feelings of Snow White and the Huntsman while taking Frozen-like twists. Overall, Maleficent was quite enjoyable, it is definitely worth the watch. It caters to both child audiences and more mature viewers, however it also fails by being sometimes undesirable to both. I give Maleficent a disappointed 7.0/10.

The Butler was a serious disappointment, and it had two main problems. #1: The casting. Casting big-name actors in the role of the presidents or other minor parts was one of the biggest faults of the film. In this movie, there was never Dwight Eisenhower or Nancy Reagan on screen, it was always Robin Williams or Jane Fonda playing Dwight Eisenhower or Jane Fonda. This was especially a problem since all of these roles consisted of a combined two minutes or less. It was the same case with James Marsden, John Cusak, Alan Rickman, Terrence Howard, Liev Schreiber, Mariah Carey, etc. #2: The first point can be classified in this one as well: Throughout the film it never felt like you were in the life of Cecil Gaines, the entire time it felt like I was watching a movie. Beginning with all the big-name actors, down the directing. Every single scene you could see the directors intention with that scene - this scene I'm supposed to laugh, this scene I'm supposed to cry, I'm supposed to like this character, I'm supposed to like this president because I'm supposed to laugh in this scene where he's sitting on the toilet asking for prune juice. I never felt like I was allowed to make decisions for myself. I really wanted to like this movie because of the great story that was in it, but it was very poorly done.

Wreck-It Ralph was released in 2012 and is a happy little story about video game characters. Everyone I knew who had seen it said that they absolutely loved this movie, and were thoroughly entertained. Hearing so much great stuff about it I was of course very excited to see it, yet on watching it yesterday I found that it did not meet my expectations.

John C. Reilly voiced the lead of this film, playing the title character. He did a fine job, but as far as animated films go the actors do not have too much of a task. It is true that voice work can be difficult, but it rarely elevates or brings down the movie when it is done well or poorly. Jane Lynch, Jack McBrayer, Alan Tudyk, and Sarah Silverman voiced the other leads of the film, the only notable one being Silverman who did the cute but often irritating voice of Vanellope Von Schweetz.

Rich Moore directed and co-wrote this film along with Phil Johnston, Jim Reardon, and Jennifer Lee. The storyline of Wreck-it Ralph was excellent and the dialogue was hilarious and entertaining, yet it wasn't great. Perhaps it was the directing were Wreck-It Ralph seemed to fail for me, but I am unable to pinpoint where exactly the directing went wrong, if it did. There was also a perfectly fine score provided by Henry Jackman, which fit the whole movie, and made a great backup. I think the greatest fault of this film is that it didn't feel like the director, writers, and composer loved the movie they were making, and didn't put their all into it, and simply made a pretty good movie. The result was an entertaining film that will probably be forgotten rather quickly.

I didn't like Wreck-It Ralph, but I didn't hate it either. I'm not sure why this was the case, it seemed like the perfect formula for a good movie, a great idea with good writing and animation, but it didn't seem to hit me as a movie I particularly enjoyed. Wreck-It Ralph was nominated for Best Animated Film in 2013, but lost out to Disney/Pixar's Brave.

I give Wreck-It Ralph a forgettable 6.9/10

Star Trek Into Darkness was releases last week of 2013 and is the sequel to 2009′s Star Trek remake. After the success in 2009, J.J. Abrams and his crew had very large shoes to fill, and didn't necessarily do the job. As much as I wanted to love this movie, it being a sequel to Star Trek and casting one of my favorite actors as the largest Star Trek villain of all time, sadly I was severely disappointed.

The acting was the strong point of this movie, aside from the special effects. These actors had done an excellent job playing these legendary characters in 2009, and had the great opportunity of reprising their roles. All of the returning actors, specifically Zachary Quinto and Simon Pegg, did very good work in their return to space making Into Darkness still and enjoyable film. The only newcomer to the leading cast was Benedict Cumberbatch playing the great Khan (I would say Spoiler Alert except everyone already knew this was going to happen.) Cumberbatch is one of my favorite currently rising actors, I have especially enjoyed him in the BBC miniseries Sherlock and in 2011′s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, so I was very anxious to see him take on a role in the Sci-Fi spectrum. Again I was disappointed, not because Cumberbatch wasn't good, honestly he did the best with what he was given, but because the writers seemed to really bring his character down. Which brings me to my next point.

In 2009, the greatest strength of Star Trek was the writers and their ability to imitate the original TV series while adding modern intrigue. In 2013 however, the writing failed and brought down the movie entirely, even though it was the exact same writers with the addition of Damon Lindelof. One of the most enjoyable parts of Star Trek in 2009 was the almost perfect replication of the characters, creating dialogue and situations that reflected the characters all those Trekkies knew so well. This success was dropped for Into Darkness, as it seemed the writers made the severe mistake of imitating the characters from 2009 rather than imitating the original characters, allowing the very few mistakes from 2009 to be maximized. The story also dropped calibers. In the remake, a very complex story that was still easy to follow and reflected all the characters personalities perfectly, yet still being believable circumstances, was made, which essentially made the movie the success it was. For Into Darkness though, the story was mediocre with often clichéd scenes, that made the story predictable and even boring. The best idea for the story was to bring the character of Khan back, which was a good idea, but that's as far as they got. Their follow through with Khan was very lousy, he was actually hardly in the movie at all. When his character was defeated, which was in a rather inconsistent way for his character, I was very surprised as I thought that the movie had plenty of time left, until I looked at my watch and realized that I had been watching zero plot or character development for two hours. Unfortunately, director J.J. Abrams never seemed to step in and make this script that had been written poorly a success, as I realize more and more that Abrams is a technical director and seems to focus more on the special effects of the film. Which I must note, was very good.

I really wanted Star Trek Into Darkness to be very good; I loved Star Trek from 2009 and the fact that they had brought Benedict Cumberbatch into the mix for the sequel excited me even more. However, I was not pleased by the product of the film-makers, and was overall very let down. Oscar nomination have not yet come out for this year, and won't for a number of months, but any real Academy Awards success for this film is unlikely. It will probably pick up some nominations for visual effects and sound work, but definitely nothing else.

I give Star Trek Into Darkness a very disappointed 7.3/10

Smoke Signals was released in 2008 and is a great taste of modern Native American culture. I didn't love the movie, but I was very taken into the story and each of the characters lives. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the movie and being able to experience all that occurs on today's Indian Reservations.

The acting was by far the weakest point of this movie, but frankly there is some excuse for that considering the entire cast was made up of Native Americans. Not that Native Americans can't act very well, which they can, there just aren't too many who are interested in making a movie. The two lead roles are perfect examples of this. Victor Joseph is the first lead of the movie, played by Adam Beach, and is a very stoic person who has lived a hard life with his father leaving while he was a child. Thomas Builds-the-Fire is the second lead, played by Evan Adams, who is a very nerdy young man who desperately wants to be Victor's friend. Adam Beach does a very poor job in his role with every line being dry, which some could say matched his character, but not once did I believe that it wasn't an actor I was watching. Evan Adams, on the other hand, did an excellent job in his part, playing the nerd of Thomas almost perfectly. There is one particular point in the film, that I especially like, where he has lost his dorky braids, clean suit, and big glasses and is walking very coolly towards the camera; his hair blowing in the wind while he is walking in slow motion, and you begin to think that this is a really cool character. Then slowly he puts on a smile and immediately the nerd is back within an instant. Aside from Evan Adams' though, the acting in the entire film is really lousy, but in a way it sort of fits with the film, giving a taste of that rich culture even more.

Chris Eyre directed this movie, and actually did a surprisingly good job for his first full-length film. Even though the film was very short, and the story even left open at times, each scene transition was very smooth. I was especially fond of all the different cultural aspects he included, from the bored radio announcer and radio meteorologist, and the long car trips in reverse because normal drive doesn't work, to the wide love of fry bread. This was just a great learning experience to what's going on right in our, or more accurately their, backyard that we know so little about. Acclaimed writer Sherman Alexie wrote the screenplay based off of a short story of his. Frankly, I thought this is where there was some of the greatest fault. The dialogue was alright, but mainly it was just the story and even some plot holes that brought down the movie a little. Nevertheless, it was a great film.

If you decide to watch Smoke Signals, don't watch it for the movie. Watch it for the good story and great cultural experience that lies behind it. Then go out to one of the many Indian Reservations nearby and experience that culture firsthand, since it is the real root of the great country we live in.

I give Smoke Signals a culturally informed 7.7/10